1.现经编定的文学史普遍存在一个显而易见的局限:恰如早先历史典籍往往只限于有文字记载的数千年文明史一样,它们事实上仅仅是文学发展的历史。具体地说,它们把文学形态的发生和成熟问题当成了文学历史的演化和发展问题来处理。文学的历史学考察与文学的形态学研究就此失去了必要的区别和联系,文学形态被看成既成事实接受下来,而不去探寻其所以成为文学的根由。古人类学、考古学及文化人类学等学科的发现,早就致使人类学家、历史学家把笔触探往人类的“史前史”;同样地,审美发生学和艺术起源理论的研究也已指明,人类的审美意识和艺术活动有 1. There is a common and obvious limitation in the history of literature and literature that has been codified: just as the earlier historical texts were often confined to literally thousands of years of civilized history, they were in fact only the history of the development of literature. Specifically, they treat the occurrence and maturity of literary form as the evolution and development of literary history. The investigation of the history of literature and the study of the morphology of literature have thus lost the necessary distinction and connection, and the literary form has been accepted as a fait accompli, not to the root cause of why it has become literature. The discovery of such disciplines as paleo-anthropology, archeology and cultural anthropology has long led anthropologists and historians to explore the “prehistoric history” of mankind. Similarly, the study of the theories of aesthetic genesis and art origin has also been studied Pointed out that the human aesthetic awareness and art activities have